Spirituality
25 Jul 18
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayIsn’t this just an aspect of confirmation bias?
Design is one of those you know when you see it things.
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIf a designer exists and made it look like design isn't necessary to explain the diversity of life, there would be no way for the scientific method to verify their existence.
The main reason I think why scientists would reject common design is because they have no place for a designer within the frame of reference of their thought processes.
If a designer did in fact exist how would the scientific method pick up evidence for common design? I'm sure if you are looking for common design there is loads of evidence for it. Most scientists are only looking for evidence of common decent because of their preconceived ideas.
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterYou might have a method to identify design I would love to see it. Its easy to identify and prove patterns, but many patterns don’t require a design.
Isn’t this just an aspect of confirmation bias?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraHow would you know if design was or wasn't necessary to explain the diversity of life?
If a designer exists and made it look like design isn't necessary to explain the diversity of life, there would be no way for the scientific method to verify their existence.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYou have yet to show me a designer isn’t necessary. The complexity of life is a matter multiple pieces, multiple systems all functioning in sync to keep itself going, that to me screams intentional processes, not the results of a blind process with out any motivation towards any outcome!
If a designer exists and made it look like design isn't necessary to explain the diversity of life, there would be no way for the scientific method to verify their existence.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraHow do you know what has been designed, can you describe your process?
That's not really how an evidence-based assessment works.
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou can certainly feel confident in that idea but science advances all the time and there will IMHO come a time when you or your grandkids maybe will be forced to re-evaluate that position, like when scientists can take a pile of sludge and show actual cells coming out of the mix as a result of UV light, water, minerals interacting.
You have yet to show me a designer isn’t necessary. The complexity of life is a matter multiple pieces, multiple systems all functioning in sync to keep itself going, that to me screams intentional processes, not the results of a blind process with out any motivation towards any outcome!
So far they have shown some very complex compounds come out of such a mix already and I think it is only a matter of time where they make life from mud in the labs.
I can only assume if that happens the religious world will NOT reverse it's story but instead just double down and hunker down in the face of new evidence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseIf they were to make life if the lab wouldn’t they be showing that the existence of life requires an intelligent intervention?
You can certainly feel confident in that idea but science advances all the time and there will IMHO come a time when you or your grandkids maybe will be forced to re-evaluate that position, like when scientists can take a pile of sludge and show actual cells coming out of the mix as a result of UV light, water, minerals interacting.
So far they have shown ...[text shortened]... NOT reverse it's story but instead just double down and hunker down in the face of new evidence.
02 Sep 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerNo, they would be showing if you mix UV, water, minerals and maybe lightning in ways that existed in early Earth and other places even in the solar system that life can form from natural processes.
If they were to make life if the lab wouldn’t they be showing that the existence of life requires an intelligent intervention?
They would NOT be going, ok, if we add a touch of magnesium right at the 3/4 point of this molecular combination we will make a membrane.
They would actually go, lets put this muck together with clay and UV and lightning and water and let the reaction go on it's own.
Just a BIT different from an active designer.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @sonhouseBut the fact they are interfering by 'mixing' certain ratios would mean it is not a natural process.
No, they would be showing if you mix UV, water, minerals and maybe lightning in ways that existed in early Earth and other places even in the solar system that life can form from natural processes.
They would NOT be going, ok, if we add a touch of magnesium right at the 3/4 point of this molecular combination we will make a membrane.
They would actua ...[text shortened]... and water and let the reaction go on it's own.
Just a BIT different from an active designer.
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou assume life is just some chemicals arraigned properly, so it is not much different from opening a combination lock. That isn’t something you know for a fact, you believe.
You can certainly feel confident in that idea but science advances all the time and there will IMHO come a time when you or your grandkids maybe will be forced to re-evaluate that position, like when scientists can take a pile of sludge and show actual cells coming out of the mix as a result of UV light, water, minerals interacting.
So far they have shown ...[text shortened]... NOT reverse it's story but instead just double down and hunker down in the face of new evidence.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe currently have an accurate model that doesn't require a designer.
How would you know if design was or wasn't necessary to explain the diversity of life?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYour model requires more faith than having a designer.
We currently have an accurate model that doesn't require a designer.